Why do people believe in things when the body of scientific evidence shows otherwise

[technodad]

This is not intended to be an attack on any denomination of belief. The aim of this thread is to try to understand why people choose to believe things, when there are far more likely explanations and why people choose to not trust the scientific opinion.

I am not particularly thinking about a discussion about religion because clearly "faith", some old books and preaching make a difference there (although, please discuss religion if it is relevant). I am thinking more about things like:

• People don't believe global is happening when the vast majority of the scientific community can provide evidence that it is.

• People believe in ghosts when their existance violates all the laws of physics and pretty much all "ghost events" (if not absolutely all) can be explained without mystery.

• People don't get their kids vaccinated (e.g. MMR), when it is clear that not vaccinating is orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaccinating.

• People think that palm reading, tea leaf reading, etc actually works...

• People believe in "alternative" medicines work, when every "alternative" medicine that actually works is now simple called "medicine"!

The rules are as follows:

1. You can say what ever you like, and I don't care if you insult me.

2. If you post something, you may have someone say something that challenges your deeply held beliefs, so please only post if this is acceptable to you.

3. No one is allowed to complain about anyone being horrible, or arrogant, based upon the fact that people will only post here if they are up for a debate (see 2).

4. There is no 4.

There is a problem with dressing up a particular method of placebo delivery, especially if becomes an alternative therapy rather than a complementary one - leading to the danger of missing out on appropriate conventional treatments because of undue faith in a particular brand of woo.
I actually agree with you on that one.

As long as complementary doesn't mean one is better than the other.

However I disagree that all complementary medicines are just placebo effect.

FeelingGrateful I don't 'believe' in science in the way other people 'believe' in ghosts.. I just happen to know it works. The scientific method is currently the best way to test a theory. I leave the believing for the religious/superstitious.

Ok so how to do test things that are working with a different paradigm then?

I'm sure there are situations where double-blind tests are difficult. But what can you offer to replace it?

if you know a complementary medicine that has a real effect then get it tested and it will then be medicine.

You don't have to "believe" in science. It just is.

Do you believe in gravity?

"Ok so how to do test things that are working with a different paradigm then?"

What does this mean?

However I disagree that all complementary medicines are just placebo effect.

No, they aren't - many herbal medicines have genuinely active ingredients (which is probably why they haven't been mentioned in this discussion). Some have been properly tested/regulated and become mainstream medicines.

It's more complicated than 'science = good, testable, unbiased search for the truth'. It can be but it is more complicated than that.

A lot of stuff that appears to be medical 'science' is actually written by PR companies. There are plenty of jobs out there for 'medical writers' in PR agencies. A recent study in PLoS Medicine found that 41% of abstracts issued by researchers and 46% of press releases issued by researchers, contained ‘spin’ i.e. claims that were not supported by the evidence, such as reporting a finding that is statistically insignificant as if it were relevant.

The positive thing, of course, is that it was scientists who did this study into spin. But there are plenty of other scientists who put their names to abstracts that conveniently exaggerated the effectiveness of new medicines.

There's a rule of thumb that when a new drug is licensed, there will be lots of studies that say it is very effective, yet within 10 years the weight of evidence often shows it's little better than placebo. (Clearly this does not apply to every drug in every condition, it's a rough generalisation.)

Drug companies are not obliged to publish all studies, positive and negative. Peer review, while A Good Thing in terms of senior people with expertise evaluating research, can also be problematic, if the reviewers are committed to the consensus and react badly to a paper that threatens their assumptions, or if they don't declare conflicts of interest. Or if they just don't like the researchers or the institution- peer reviewers are human beings who can be petty, or biased, or whatever.

You would think it is in the interest of drug companies to make safe, effective drugs, but actually it can be in their short-term interest to downplay safety concerns. Look at Seroxat and suicide if you want to see the pharmaceutical industry at its worst - and not only the industry but some eminent scientists and supposedly reputable professional bodies. Admitting your drug is killing people, or doesn't work, tends not to be great for your profits or your shareholders.

Scientists are human beings. They are not infallible. But beyond that, there are some wider issues with medical research and the profit motive. I don't know enough about other sciences to judge whether similar issues apply there, but I don't see why they would be exempt from the failings of humanity.

Oh hello, Errol / Grimma! You've morphed / evolved into a dragon - how exciting! I'm just still a decapitated, disembodied bloodied head. I have many happy memories of meeting you on threads akin to this one!

Curlew - surely non-scientific types (like myself) have to trust scientists as people? Which involves things like truthfulness, ethical standards, responsible handling of dangerous things? I remember very well when I was being advised to pump my body full of very strong toxins, what GPs call a 'scary drug', my consultant saying 'Trust me.' I had done a bit of reading about the drug and thought for myself about the risks etc, but ultimately I trusted the doctor and took the drug. Science comes to us mediated by scientists, and we have to 'believe in' them or trust them as people. We need to trust in scientific institutions too, as these are just communities of people. Not that there's anything problematic with any of this, it's just good to recognise that trust / belief has to come into it.

Curlew, I'm a counsellor and study psychology. Why do you ask?

What school of counseling do you follow?

I still want to know why the heck you've got that name, Holo!

Curlew, I think I've given as much personal info as I am comfortable with already. What reason do you have for needing info on my "school"?

Oh, it's just my grizzly sense of humour. In the book of Judith (in the Apocrypha) Holofernes is a wicked Assyrian general who is about to destroy Judith's home town, but sadly, gets utterly raddled, passes out and seizing the moment, Judith decapitates the drunken Holofernes and puts his head in a food bag (nice touch). The decapitation of Holofernes is quite a popular subject in art, with lots of gratuitous boobage (Judith does her decapitation half dressed if the Italian Renaissance artists are to be believed): here

YY edam

curlew if you wonder what I mean by paradigm, go back a few posts and you will see I have explained that already. I have also explained why sometimes the methods used by 'science' are very restrictive and stop us from getting the real picture

Holo - yeah, I know the story, its just such a gruesome fascinating choice. (whereas any discworld character or dragon is entirely normal on MN so my name is the most conventional possible!)

OK- I get why it's difficult to do double blind testing on acupuncture. Apart from anything else, people would notice if they were having pins stuck in them or not! But it still has been extensively tested and found not to work.

What other examples are the of things which cannot be tested by normal scientific methods?

I have also explained why sometimes the methods used by 'science' are very restrictive and stop us from getting the real picture

Not really. There are many scientific methodologies which can be used, as appropriate to the particular case, and they stand a far greater chance of reaching the 'real picture' than any unscientific means I can think of.

Errol agree with you re herbal medicine.

With a slight issue on my side. When aspirin was discovered, it was coming from a plant and used by people with little side effect. Our reductionist view means that we have tried to find the 'active' ingredient, taken it out to put into a pill. That active ingredient is now well know to have some serious side effects such as bleeding of the stomach (a side effect that kills hundreds of people every year). But the plant doesn't have that effect because, amongst that active ingredient, you have other chemical that will counter balance that.
but nowadays herbalists aren't allowed to prescribed that plant ... because it's too dangerous. Even if aspirin can be bought over the counter/in supermarket with no advice at all.

This is where I am saying that we don't have the full picture. our reductionist view have made us select one ingredient and forget about the chemical complexity involved and their effect on the body (all positive in that case). Of course one ingredient is easier and cheaper to put in a pill. And much more profitable than growing a plant. But at what cost?

While the 'double-blind' test is the gold standard which should be used wherever feasible for clinical trials, its obviously not the only approach which can be classified as a 'normal scientific method'.

Feeling - but from what you've said, science has elucidated the 'full picture' on aspirin - the problem is a matter of drug regulation and profitability. Don't blame 'science' for that - and don't forget that some other 'natural' herbal remedies can have extremely serious side effects themselves which really should be analysed and regulated.

St John's Wort is pretty potent stuff, isn't it? It is sold on open shelves but can be quite dangerous in conjunction with various prescription drugs. Do we think that should be regulated?

Just as much as I am full supporter of complementary medicine and herbal medicine, I think all herbal medicines should be given by a herbalist.
I have seen too many people taking anything and everything (and buying it from the internet ie not always from a reputable source) that it is very very scary.

NHS info on St John's Wort - note that it is discussed as a medicine. I'd be inclined to say its only safe to take it (or other herbal medicines) 'scientifically' ie in the light of available evidence of its risks and benefits.